LAMAS Working Group 6-7 December 2017 Agenda Item 2.3 Detailed topic on 'Dependent self-employment' and the variable DURFIJOB (migrant module) Havard.Lien@ec.europa.eu (10' presentation, 30' discussion) Eurostat

Background Two topics from Task Force 2 (from AHMs) Dependent self-employed: wait for ILO development work or not? Migrants: one variable revised since the June 2017 LAMAS Dear colleagues, This presentation will cover two topics, which are not thematically linked, but both come from the ad hoc modules. [click] The first is on the dependent self-employed, where the main question is if we should wait for further work in the ILO. And the other is the migrants module, where we present the new version of the variable you did not approve in the June meeting. Eurostat

ILO: revised status in employment New ILO category of dependent contractors We have tested one variable ("Setting the price of the work") and could therefore have early implementation in the LFS of (parts of) the revised status in employment Before we start on the discussion and look at the results of the exchange of views, I want to quickly remind you, as you already saw this morning, that the ILO is working on revising the status in employment. This has direct consequences for our discussion and decisions on the topic of dependent self-employed. The new ILO category of dependent contractors is partially covered by the "Setting the price of the work". This variable has been tested, reviewed by Task Force 2, which found that the test results are acceptable.

Dependent self-employed Two of three open spots filled: MAINCLNT and a merged WORKORG/VARIWT Four possible solutions for the last open spot: "Main reason for becoming self-employed" "Setting the price of the work" Blank Wait In the LAMAS in June there was large support for adding MAINCLNT and WORKORG/VARIWT (ahm 2017) to the core. This fills two of the three possible spots for the topic of dependent self-employed. [click] In the exchange of views now, we asked you what you want as the third and final variable: main reason for becoming self-employed (ahm 2017); setting the price of the work (ILO); don’t add anything; wait for further ILO work. A very large majority among you for keeping MAINCLNT and WORKORG/VARIWT (as per the June 2017 LAMAS decision), and to wait for further ILO work on dependent contractors / revised status in employment before we do anything more. We therefore consider this result as rather obvious until we see further test results / decisions from the ILO. However, if you have comments on this topic, please say so now (15 minutes). Open for discussion on dependent self-employed (Supported by 91% in the EoV)

Migrants – variable DURFIJOB "Time required to find a paid job" sent back to TF2 (June 2017 LAMAS) Entry filter: first generation immigrants Answer options: countries decide on how to ask (brackets or exact number of months) Reference point: start of the job search in the host country The second item is the migrants module In the June LAMAS you approved 10 of the 11 proposed variables for the migrant module (2021 and repeated). You sent one variable back to Task Force 2, for redesign. That was the 'time required to find a paid job', which was criticised for being having a too complicated entry filter, too many answer options, and an strange reference period. We have therefore simplified it, in the way you see here. [click] (Filter from 1st generation immigrant who had not found a job in the host country before migrating to first generation immigrants Answer options from seven set brackets of number of months, plus did not find, did not look, did not have the right to countries free to decide on brackets or not, plus did not find, did not look, did not have the right to work Reference period from arrival date to start of search date)

Migrants – variable DURFIJOB New version supported by 69 % in the EoV (11% against, 17% don’t know, 3% blank) Proposals to add filter on arrival time (10 years) filter on education (completed) answer option found job before moving Request to clarify the limits between did not find a job and did not have the right to work Then, for the exchange of views results As you see, there is a clear majority for the proposal, but we have received some comments as well [click] For the comment on the filters: yes, we could, but we are then back with the complicated filter, which a large majority of you said 6 months ago that you did not want to have. For the answer option: this is covered by MIGREAS 'job found before migrating' (only as main reason, but still . . ) For the clarification: The colleagues from Belgium pointed out that it could be that people have looked for a job and that they did not find one because they did not have the right to work (they were faced with this when they were. People might not be aware of the legislation on whether they have the right to work or not. This seems very likely, yes. We therefore propose therefore to merge these two answer options. Open the floor for debate on DURFIJOB (15 minutes)